On 10/19/10 3:06 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> On 10/19/2010 11:02 AM, Anthony wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Nathan Edgars
>> II<neroute2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> We do have highway=proposed/construction.
>>>> Most of which I assume would be usable for travel, at least by
>> construction vehicles. If highway=proposed is being used for
>> something which is completely invisible, I think that's inappropriate.
>> How so? highway=proposed sounds like the very definition of a “paper
> street”. Until construction has been started (highway=construction)
> there will be no physical evidence of it.
>> Whether or not we’re interested in documenting what’s not on the
> ground is an entirely different question, but if we’re going to map
> proposed/paper streets at all, highway=proposed sounds entirely
> appropriate.
>> Of course, at some point a proposal may die and there’s no need to
> indicate on the map where a road is *no longer* proposed.
mapping proposals is pretty dicey. lots of proposals fail, and it's pretty
damned hard to clean up unless someone is making it their special job
to track them down and clean them up.
tiger seems to have spots where there are streets that developers planned
but never built. i see them from time to time.
richard
richard